(20-09-2013 10:09 PM)excubitor Wrote: The Bible is the ultimate authority, the actual divine inspired word of God. That is my evidence.

If the bible is the ultimate authority how come not everyone is following it?

So... it's just what you allowed to become your ultimate authority.

Kind of like in that CSI:RV episode where Gil Grisson writes in a small booklet of his "This is Tonya Carters. She killed herself and you want to go home early now to sleep."

He presented it as evidence that it wasn't a murder. He was asked if he wrote it himself. He said yes. He was asked if it was written postmortem. He said yes. He was asked why he wrote that postmortem to present as evidence. He explained that because he was so tired from lack of a proper nights sleep that he was moved to write that for some unknown mysterious reason. He was asked why he felt it was evidence. He said that because it was written in a book, a book that he held to be the Ultimate Authority, it had to be true.

He was subsequently put on suspension, pending further psychological analysis.

(21-09-2013 08:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The real and only question remaining is :
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"

All the rest is irrelevant meaningless bullshit.
Unbelievable, that modern humans are STILL arguing this garbage.
No one cares. No one. They can't even prove Jebus existed.
All of Christianity is a distortion of Hebrew culture, which they affirm, and deny.
They use Buber to affirm, even while HIS work proves it's crap.

So long as arguing about this shit is the limit of excubitor's contribution to the outside world, I think I can live with that...

(21-09-2013 09:10 AM)evenheathen Wrote: Alright excuseitor, I shouldn't have made such disparaging remarks about your mother. That was deplorable behavior on my part.

But I'm still waiting for your answer. How can you claim that the pope's words carry such authority, and still deny that evolution is an established fact that is recognized by the very organization that you so desperately defend?

I half expect his answer to fall along the lines of...

But that would make far more sense that whatever excuse he'll give you!

More proof of his ignorance.
No one in the RC claims the Bible is the "divine" anything. Only Jebus is the "divine" *Word*, (according to them). They like to make up shit.
The word "divine" in that context makes no sense.
As I have pointed out before, there are many concepts of "divinity", and what that means in the Bible. In the OT, "divine being" doesn't even mean JUST a god.
The shade of Samuel, which the Witch of Endor saw, was said to be "divine".
There was no immortality in the OT, and NO one and NOTHING, (and certainly not all the various "sons of God", and there were many), were "divine", in the sense of "equivalent to Yahweh". That would have been a threat to monotheism. Originally the Hebrews were polytheistic, and Yahweh had a wife (Ashura) they worshiped, in Dan, Jerusalem, and a few other centers, (Beth-El, and Shiloh ... proven by Archaeology).
In the NT, in each of the gospels, the concept of the divinity of Jebus is different, as every scholar knows. This 'ex" person, is obviously a scholar of nothing. They argued for centuries in the councils about the subject, as they cooked up and formed, and re-formed the "filioque" (divinity of Christ) idea. The very early church did not think Jebus was a "divine" being. They were good Jews. It was/would be blasphemy.
The concept of "inspiration" has a clearly traceable, long, developmental course, and was not always claimed by the RC. They cooked it up, along with all their "doctrines". When Timothy claimed "inspiration" for scripture, the canon had not even been established, and he was referring to many other texts as well, (as any scholar knows). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration The canon was not established firmly for centuries, and many STILL do not agree what it is. Eusebius claimed there were only four gospels because the "Earth was built on 4 pillars and there were 4 winds". Obvious scientific crap, and meaningless nonsense. He cut down the number of gospels for POLITICAL reason, as he was instructed to do by political authorities.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(21-09-2013 08:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The real and only question remaining is :
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"

All the rest is irrelevant meaningless bullshit.
Unbelievable, that modern humans are STILL arguing this garbage.
No one cares. No one. They can't even prove Jebus existed.
All of Christianity is a distortion of Hebrew culture, which they affirm, and deny.
They use Buber to affirm it

So long as arguing about this shit is the limit of excubitor's contribution to the outside world, I think I can live with that...

"I and Thou" (Buber) is often quoted on EWTN, even while HIS work proves it's crap, (Part II of "Good and Evil"), and totally "non-biblical".
There is no "mechanism" established for "inspiration". There is no human who has ever written "faithfully" what was "dictated". It's all relative to individual mental status, and the entire business was not even claimed about the Bible specifically until LATE in their cult's history. Jerome TRANSLATED the Greek word into the Italian/Latin, but it didn't really mean "god-breathed', exactly in the original text. More like "god *blown into*". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration Of course they were totally ignorant of brain functions, and physiology, and capabilities. It's just ranting, and affirmations of nothing.

All of cube-for-a-brain's arguments are the fallacy of "argumentum ad auctoritatem". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (see second bullet).
No one here has agreed to accept any of his personal, peccadillo authority figures as authoritative. So he flunked Marketing also. No PR skills, at all. The least a belieber could do, who actually wanted to convince someone, was start out with trying to obtain agreement about something they held in common with the people he was going to argue with. Instead of asserting (false, prideful) moral superiority. In his cult, only his gods can judge. Clearly he accepts only parts of what Jebus told him to do. Very common these days. Another ''cafeteria" Catholic. Yawn.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(21-09-2013 04:28 AM)excubitor Wrote: "However Vatican 2 also states that they are NOT churches in the proper sense of the word."
I was mistaken. The words are not in Vatican 2 they are in the Popes encyclical Dominus Iesus which cites the Vatican 2 decree on Ecumenism. This decree concedes that Christians can exist in other communions by virtue of the baptism of the individual. However it deliberately avoids using the word "church" for any of these fellowships.
The Document Dominus Iesus is specifically a document which explains the Vatican 2 documents and adds more clarity to them.

Admiitting he lied. Damn right he was "mistaken".
From the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA :
"Dr. James Gairdner, whose "History of the English Church in the 16th Century" lays bare the essentially Protestant spirit of the English Reformation, in a letter on "Continuity" (reproduced in the Tablet, 20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical to doctrinal ground. "If the country," he says, "still contained a community of Christians--that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel of salvation, men who still accepted the old creeds, and had no doubt Christ died to save them--then the Church of England remained the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as regards doctrine nothing was taken away except some doubtful scholastic propositions."

The document from Vatican II used the word SUBSIST. He obviously doesn't know what that means. He has proven NOTHING without circular, internal, often mistaken use of references. I could care less about his personal history, or how many hours of study he *says* he studied. Meaningless. I'm not impressed. He's generally ignorant of every subject, as he has demonstrated over and over here. References from ROME, asserting preeminence of ROME are illegitimate. Get it ? Circular, and they are evidence of NOTHING. They cooked up Roman primacy. It did not exist in the early church. You have no "intellect", so don't throw that out. It's meaningless crap.
Go away. No one here cares about you PPO, (Pedophile Protection Organization). And they admit they made it up, as I demonstrated.

(21-09-2013 04:28 AM)excubitor Wrote: Where do they admit they made it up?
Your article quotes an Eastern Orthodox priest who surely you would expect to be biased in favour of his camp. Alexander Schmemann says.

So now you, who ONLY uses Catholic sources, now turn on a dime, and object to it when others use Non-Catholic sources. "What did you expect them to say" ?
Exactly. Your sources are ALL BIASED, as is your Alexander Schmemann. What did you expect them to say ? THAT IS THE POINT, idiot.

So you accuse me of using biased sources to show that the Pope had authority over all the churches. You reject these sources. So then I find a Lutheran source who would clearly not be biased to show the same thing and you reject the Lutheran historian as well. If you know anything about Lutherans you would expect them write biased polemics decrying the authority of the Pope. This poor fellow Alexander Schemann is obviously an honest man and a fine scholar and is unable to claim something which is so completely obvious by any fair minded historian. You however have ignored every piece of evidence I have presented which shows that the Pope had authority over all the churches. You have ridiculed and abused. Worse still, you have not provided even a shred of evidence to the contrary to show that the Pope only had authority over Rome.

You are clearly a person of ill will. Not actually very clever. All full of bluster and bravado but lacking the intelligence and forthrightness required to address the subject in an open an honest way. So I will not be wasting any more time with you.

(21-09-2013 07:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(21-09-2013 04:28 AM)excubitor Wrote: This is utterly false. What school did you go to? Clearly you have no knowledge of Apostolicae Curae in 1893 where Pope Leo XIII declared all Anglican orders "absolutely null and utterly void."

Idiot. Proof you know no history. Anglican priests DO NOT NEED TO BE "RE-ORDAINED".
If they don't and never have needed to be reordained, their orders and sacraments were considered legitimate.
Nice try at re-writing history, you ignoramus. Everyone knows they never needed to be re-ordained, (except you). http://anglicanink.com/article/reordinat...nglicanism
"Fr Tim Edgar says: 23 October 2009 at 2:45 pm
As one of those who went through this; Mgr Leonard was, as far as I know, the only one who was allowed conditional ordination because when he was originally ordained in the C of E an Old Catholic Bishop was present.For the rest of us ordination was absolute. Cardinal Hume was very clear that this wasn’t about questioning, per se, Anglican Orders. Rather it was about being utterly certain of Catholic Orders.
"F" in History also.

So you are you suggesting that Pope Leo XIII was biased when he stated the Anglican orders are absolutely null and void. In your brain the Pope himself is not even allowed to state with any authority the position of the Roman Catholic church.
I was planning to go a reordination just the other week but was unable to at the last minute. I heard that it went well. Obviously there were a great gathering of over 200 people there that did not know what ignoramuses Bucky Ball considers them to be. Why do you think that the priests converting to join the Anglican Ordinariate have to be reordained if "everyone knows that the never need to be reordained".

Even the text you copied across as "evidence" of your claims states the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what you imagine.

You say
"Everyone knows they never needed to be re-ordained, (except you). "

Whereas the authority which you cited says the direct opposite. It explains that a couple of priests were reordained conditionally on account of their association with the Old Catholics, whereas most were required to have absolute ordinations (not conditional)

The WHOLE article you cited explains why reordination of Anglican priests is necessary and should not be regarded as a rejection of Anglicanism. Here are some quotes from YOUR ARTICLE.

A DIRECT CONTRADICTION to your repeated, belligerent, ridiculous, moronic claim that "Everyone knows they never needed to be re-ordained, (except you). "

Listen Bozo, you set the bar here at Atheist thinking forum. Which is a sad commentary for the rest of you. Crude, moronic, unthinking beasts. That is the atheist condition which you all exhibit in spades. It is a result of your god. You worship the creation as your originator. Your distant ancestors are unthinking beasts so you have become like your ancestors.

There is not a single atheist here on this forum who deserves the title "thinker". I have found not a single worthy opponent. In fact you are not motivated by your brains but by your stomachs and your most base desires to rebel against God and leave the church. Not good enough

(21-09-2013 07:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Admiitting he lied. Damn right he was "mistaken".
From the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA :
"Dr. James Gairdner, whose "History of the English Church in the 16th Century" lays bare the essentially Protestant spirit of the English Reformation, in a letter on "Continuity" (reproduced in the Tablet, 20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical to doctrinal ground. "If the country," he says, "still contained a community of Christians--that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel of salvation, men who still accepted the old creeds, and had no doubt Christ died to save them--then the Church of England remained the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as regards doctrine nothing was taken away except some doubtful scholastic propositions."

The document from Vatican II used the word SUBSIST. He obviously doesn't know what that means. He has proven NOTHING without circular, internal, often mistaken use of references. I could care less about his personal history, or how many hours of study he *says* he studied. Meaningless. I'm not impressed. He's generally ignorant of every subject, as he has demonstrated over and over here. References from ROME, asserting preeminence of ROME are illegitimate. Get it ? Circular, and they are evidence of NOTHING. They cooked up Roman primacy. It did not exist in the early church. You have no "intellect", so don't throw that out. It's meaningless crap.
Go away. No one here cares about you PPO, (Pedophile Protection Organization). And they admit they made it up, as I demonstrated.

So now you, who ONLY uses Catholic sources, now turn on a dime, and object to it when others use Non-Catholic sources. "What did you expect them to say" ?
Exactly. Your sources are ALL BIASED, as is your Alexander Schmemann. What did you expect them to say ? THAT IS THE POINT, idiot.

So you accuse me of using biased sources to show that the Pope had authority over all the churches. You reject these sources. So then I find a Lutheran source who would clearly not be biased to show the same thing and you reject the Lutheran historian as well. If you know anything about Lutherans you would expect them write biased polemics decrying the authority of the Pope. This poor fellow Alexander Schemann is obviously an honest man and a fine scholar and is unable to claim something which is so completely obvious by any fair minded historian. You however have ignored every piece of evidence I have presented which shows that the Pope had authority over all the churches. You have ridiculed and abused. Worse still, you have not provided even a shred of evidence to the contrary to show that the Pope only had authority over Rome.

You are clearly a person of ill will. Not actually very clever. All full of bluster and bravado but lacking the intelligence and forthrightness required to address the subject in an open an honest way. So I will not be wasting any more time with you.

(21-09-2013 07:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Idiot. Proof you know no history. Anglican priests DO NOT NEED TO BE "RE-ORDAINED".
If they don't and never have needed to be reordained, their orders and sacraments were considered legitimate.
Nice try at re-writing history, you ignoramus. Everyone knows they never needed to be re-ordained, (except you). http://anglicanink.com/article/reordinat...nglicanism
"Fr Tim Edgar says: 23 October 2009 at 2:45 pm
As one of those who went through this; Mgr Leonard was, as far as I know, the only one who was allowed conditional ordination because when he was originally ordained in the C of E an Old Catholic Bishop was present.For the rest of us ordination was absolute. Cardinal Hume was very clear that this wasn’t about questioning, per se, Anglican Orders. Rather it was about being utterly certain of Catholic Orders.
"F" in History also.

So you are you suggesting that Pope Leo XIII was biased when he stated the Anglican orders are absolutely null and void. In your brain the Pope himself is not even allowed to state with any authority the position of the Roman Catholic church.
I was planning to go a reordination just the other week but was unable to at the last minute. I heard that it went well. Obviously there were a great gathering of over 200 people there that did not know what ignoramuses Bucky Ball considers them to be. Why do you think that the priests converting to join the Anglican Ordinariate have to be reordained if "everyone knows that the never need to be reordained".

Even the text you copied across as "evidence" of your claims states the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what you imagine.

You say
"Everyone knows they never needed to be re-ordained, (except you). "

Whereas the authority which you cited says the direct opposite. It explains that a couple of priests were reordained conditionally on account of their association with the Old Catholics, whereas most were required to have absolute ordinations (not conditional)

The WHOLE article you cited explains why reordination of Anglican priests is necessary and should not be regarded as a rejection of Anglicanism. Here are some quotes from YOUR ARTICLE.

A DIRECT CONTRADICTION to your repeated, belligerent, ridiculous, moronic claim that "Everyone knows they never needed to be re-ordained, (except you). "

Listen Bozo, you set the bar here at Atheist thinking forum. Which is a sad commentary for the rest of you. Crude, moronic, unthinking beasts. That is the atheist condition which you all exhibit in spades. It is a result of your god. You worship the creation as your originator. Your distant ancestors are unthinking beasts so you have become like your ancestors.

There is not a single atheist here on this forum who deserves the title "thinker". I have found not a single worthy opponent. In fact you are not motivated by your brains but by your stomachs and your most base desires to rebel against God and leave the church. Not good enough

"

The more you yell and insult Bucky and the rest of us, the more I know you feel cornered. Why not get those rosaries of yours out like right about now?